Top Law Schools

Corporate lateral. I know Kirkland is ranked higher in almost every metric, but does anyone have any information about the office atmosphere of either?

No offense to Schulte associates, but this isn’t a real choice. Kirkland is the obvious answer. I’m not saying Kirkland doesn’t have flaws, but it’s in a different league.

Does your answer differ at all given that I’m not applying for an SA? I know for an SA, it’s a no brainer. But I’m wondering if the answer changes given that I’m a mid-level.

Not sure what happens to associates who don’t make nonequity partner after year 6 at Kirkland, for example. Am I just pushing paper for two to three years before being shown the door?

Are you a hedge funds lawyer? If so, go to Schulte. Do you do literally anything other than hedge funds? Then go to Kirkland. Other than for SRZ's top-notch hedge funds practice, it is difficult to imagine a reason why anyone would prefer SRZ to Kirkland. Kirkland is more profitable, makes more equity partners, potentially pays above market, has a much stronger name brand for in-house and future lateral opportunities, etc.

The non-equity partner thing at Kirkland is largely a red herring; it's not really different from being a senior associate for the first few years. But I wouldn't consider it a negative even if it's not really a positive, either. Everyone makes non-equity partner at year six, so not making non-equity partner isn't really a concern.

Anonymous User wrote:Are you a hedge funds lawyer? If so, go to Schulte. Do you do literally anything other than hedge funds? Then go to Kirkland. Other than for SRZ's top-notch hedge funds practice, it is difficult to imagine a reason why anyone would prefer SRZ to Kirkland. Kirkland is more profitable, makes more equity partners, potentially pays above market, has a much stronger name brand for in-house and future lateral opportunities, etc.

The non-equity partner thing at Kirkland is largely a red herring; it's not really different from being a senior associate for the first few years. But I wouldn't consider it a negative even if it's not really a positive, either. Everyone makes non-equity partner at year six, so not making non-equity partner isn't really a concern.

This. The only reason to pick Schulte here is if you do funds. Anecdotally I have not heard good things about the culture there.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Are you a hedge funds lawyer? If so, go to Schulte. Do you do literally anything other than hedge funds? Then go to Kirkland. Other than for SRZ's top-notch hedge funds practice, it is difficult to imagine a reason why anyone would prefer SRZ to Kirkland. Kirkland is more profitable, makes more equity partners, potentially pays above market, has a much stronger name brand for in-house and future lateral opportunities, etc.

The non-equity partner thing at Kirkland is largely a red herring; it's not really different from being a senior associate for the first few years. But I wouldn't consider it a negative even if it's not really a positive, either. Everyone makes non-equity partner at year six, so not making non-equity partner isn't really a concern.

This. The only reason to pick Schulte here is if you do funds. Anecdotally I have not heard good things about the culture there.

OP here. I’m not in funds. I’m in a specific group within corporate.

Adding STB to the mix (recently got an offer there as well).

Once I got STB, I really stopped considering SRZ (worse culture, less “prestigious,” terrible partnership odds (worse than almost any other firm)).

I was considering SRZ over Kirkland because the work for the team I am going into/considering is mostly done out of Kirkland’s Chicago office. Also, I haven’t heard the greatest things about Kirkland’s culture either.

Anyway, is there any reason I should take Kirkland NY over STB?

Edit: clarity

Culturally, the two firms are pretty different in ways that it sounds like you recognize, but both have great corporate practices with an edge to STB in New York but somewhat practice area-dependent (though Kirkland tends to focus on the same practice areas as STB so not as much practice area-dependent as it would be between a lot of other firms).

I would choose STB.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Are you a hedge funds lawyer? If so, go to Schulte. Do you do literally anything other than hedge funds? Then go to Kirkland. Other than for SRZ's top-notch hedge funds practice, it is difficult to imagine a reason why anyone would prefer SRZ to Kirkland. Kirkland is more profitable, makes more equity partners, potentially pays above market, has a much stronger name brand for in-house and future lateral opportunities, etc.

The non-equity partner thing at Kirkland is largely a red herring; it's not really different from being a senior associate for the first few years. But I wouldn't consider it a negative even if it's not really a positive, either. Everyone makes non-equity partner at year six, so not making non-equity partner isn't really a concern.

This. The only reason to pick Schulte here is if you do funds. Anecdotally I have not heard good things about the culture there.

(I would also caveat for others reading this in the future that Schulte is only good at *hedge* funds in particular. Kirkland is actually one of the top-notch firms for private equity funds, well above Schulte and only really surpassed by STB, and registered funds is also not a big practice at Schulte.)

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Are you a hedge funds lawyer? If so, go to Schulte. Do you do literally anything other than hedge funds? Then go to Kirkland. Other than for SRZ's top-notch hedge funds practice, it is difficult to imagine a reason why anyone would prefer SRZ to Kirkland. Kirkland is more profitable, makes more equity partners, potentially pays above market, has a much stronger name brand for in-house and future lateral opportunities, etc.

The non-equity partner thing at Kirkland is largely a red herring; it's not really different from being a senior associate for the first few years. But I wouldn't consider it a negative even if it's not really a positive, either. Everyone makes non-equity partner at year six, so not making non-equity partner isn't really a concern.

This. The only reason to pick Schulte here is if you do funds. Anecdotally I have not heard good things about the culture there.

(I would also caveat for others reading this in the future that Schulte is only good at *hedge* funds in particular. Kirkland is actually one of the top-notch firms for private equity funds, well above Schulte and only really surpassed by STB, and registered funds is also not a big practice at Schulte.)

Unless the objective is to work on mega-fundraises I actually think K&E > STB in PE fund formation these days.

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:

Anonymous User wrote:Are you a hedge funds lawyer? If so, go to Schulte. Do you do literally anything other than hedge funds? Then go to Kirkland. Other than for SRZ's top-notch hedge funds practice, it is difficult to imagine a reason why anyone would prefer SRZ to Kirkland. Kirkland is more profitable, makes more equity partners, potentially pays above market, has a much stronger name brand for in-house and future lateral opportunities, etc.

The non-equity partner thing at Kirkland is largely a red herring; it's not really different from being a senior associate for the first few years. But I wouldn't consider it a negative even if it's not really a positive, either. Everyone makes non-equity partner at year six, so not making non-equity partner isn't really a concern.

This. The only reason to pick Schulte here is if you do funds. Anecdotally I have not heard good things about the culture there.

(I would also caveat for others reading this in the future that Schulte is only good at *hedge* funds in particular. Kirkland is actually one of the top-notch firms for private equity funds, well above Schulte and only really surpassed by STB, and registered funds is also not a big practice at Schulte.)

Unless the objective is to work on mega-fundraises I actually think K&E > STB in PE fund formation these days.

STB and Kirkland are not comparable firms in terms of the prestige of the firm and the credentials of the associates. Choose STB. Prestige is everything in this industry.

prestige aside, I’ve heard multiple times that working at Kirkland sucks (either from practicing attorneys or posters on TLS).

I recently lateraled to K&E as a midlevel into a "specific group" from a firm with a far better reputation on TLS. I think it was the right move. The culture thing is pretty overblown in my opinion and based on my experience. Would be happy to discuss further via PM.

Anonymous User wrote:I recently lateraled to K&E as a midlevel into a "specific group" from a firm with a far better reputation on TLS. I think it was the right move. The culture thing is pretty overblown in my opinion and based on my experience. Would be happy to discuss further via PM.

I don't think there's ever been a TLS consensus that K&E has a bad rep - just that K&E has a fairly strong culture that isn't right for everyone. There are certainly plenty of folks for whom Kirkland would be an excellent fit.